(02-26-2018 03:44 PM)ren.hoek Wrote: "There is little to suggest that Skipper was anything other than protective of the ACC. Otherwise you wouldn't have made it out of 2010-2 alive. It will be interesting to see the new leaderships relationship with the SEC and ACC and whether they try to warm up to the Big 10 again."
Again, you assume that Skipper was the ACC's Lone Ranger. I just don't buy that for a second. There were undoubtedly a host of executives and subject matter experts at ESPN that Skipper had to convince before making such an enormous investment. Those decisions are not entered into without a painfully meticulous amount of forethought and planning. They saw an opportunity for a profit, simple as that. ND was a key piece of the puzzle to be sure, but they're now in the position that they really don't even need ND all in to make the ACCN viable. The other events that have since transpired are a dramatically improved ACC football product. I'll be the first to admit that the 90s and early 2000s were dreadful. I won't argue that they are the best football conference, but I have observed a marked improvement. I do concur that they will try to land Texas in the ACC with a friend (assuming ND won't submit). OU and T. Boone Pickens to the SEC.
The issues in 2010-2 happened so explosively I would think that the reaction had to come from the top, or a small cadre at the top. There simply wasn't ample time to study the failed deal, the defection of Maryland, and react with deliberate reason.
The rush to GOR's was somewhat of a late response, but a response nonetheless. The announcement of Clemson and F.S.U. to the SEC that made the ESPN crawler, a move that was retracted in about 3 days, was more evidence of reaction rather than proactive planning at the time.
ESPN was scrambling to hold onto Texas, rushed to give Kansas a T3 deal at roughly the same time FOX was doing the same with Oklahoma, and then with Maryland bolting and conversations being held at other schools it was anything but a board room decision to react the way Skipper did. I think he deserves a lot of the credit for calming things down and binding the ACC's wounds before anxiety led to more defections.
As to Texas, if ESPN wants to encourage Texas to make this move it might well involve enough schools to give them a home division. This would placate Texas's desires for games within their home state, and also help ESPN to make these moves prior to the involvement of the Tech companies when bids come up in 2023-5.
It takes 8 to dissolve the Big 12, but trying to place all 10 would likely be the safer way to make things happen.
If we get to 2023 and the Big 12 doesn't renew their GOR there will be a bidding war for UT and OU. If the Tech companies get involved things get riskier for ESPN. The could lose all of the Big 10, and the Big 12 by waiting. So, I think they will move early and try to renegotiate their existing contracts and extend them in the process.
That means they could easily absorb 7 schools within the confines of the SEC and ACC with a move to 18 each, or absorb all of them with a move to 20 each. It is also possible that they would assist some to the Big 10 in order to extend their contract there. Anyway if they made such a move they could lock down the product until the 2040's, and acquire it without risking the loss of that product to new players in the sports rights business.
Depending upon whose rights they hold and whose they might let go it could be done for as little as an additional 223 million or as much as 700 million. I think they will at least make an attempt to do this.
If the Big 10 is involved the issue of Texas could be up in the air. If they do it without the Big 10 the SEC would certainly be content to have Oklahoma and possibly a second Texas state school.
So we'll see. But with the launch of the ACCN in 2019 having Texas would definitely help land the carriage they are looking for.
/
The RSNs, Skipper's replacement, and how ESPN plans to pivot
